The true northerner. [volume] (Paw Paw, Mich.) 1855-1920, 1887-03-16

Decisions of the Federal Supreme Court
on Several Matters of Great
Interest.
The Rights OF Drummers, Chinese,
and Life Insurance Bcne-
flciaries.

flciaries.
The Supreme Court OF the United States
has rendered a decision setting aside the
State law of Tennessee which imposed q
special tax on travelling statesmen. The de-
cision rests upon the doctrine that the stat
ute in question was an Interference with
interstate commerce, and hence clearly un-
constitutional. Travelling statesmen are
agents and instrumentalities in commercial
transactions between the States, and a
special tax laid on them because of their
occupation is held 10 be a restriction on
commerce. Following is an abstract of the
opinion:
Sabine Robbins, plaintiff in error against the
taxing district of Shelby County, Tennessee in
error TO the Supreme Court of tennessee. This
arises out of the following state Of facts;
Robbins was engaged in Memphis in soliciting
orders for stationery for n stationery firm, and
in exhibiting samples for the purpose OF effect
Ing sales. State law, applicable only to this
one taxing district in force subjectiug
"drummers" and all persons not having regu-
lar licensed house of business in the district,
Offering or selling goods by sample, to u tax OF
$40 week or SIS II month. Robbins who was
unlicensed arrested, tried, convicted, and
fined, and ON appeal the Judgment was
court on writ of error upon the ground that the
law imposing the tax is repugnant To that clause
II the Constitution Of the United States which
deares that Congress shall have the power to
regulate commerce among the several States.
The principal question involved is as 10 the
constitutlonality OF the act which imposed the
tax. and it Is, in the opinion OF this court Il
question OF great Importance to the people of the
United states, both as respects their business
interests and their constitutional rights. In
long and carefully prepared opinion by Justice
Bradley, this court holds that the Constitution
gives 10 Congress the power to regulate COM
nerce among the States, and that power is nee
essarily exclusive whenever the subjects of il
are nat onal in their character or admit only OF
one uniform system or plan of regulation.
Where the power of Congress is exclusive its
failure TO act indicates its will that the subject
shall be left free from any restrictions or inn
positions, and any regulation by the States, eX-
cept in matters of local concein only, is re-
pugnant to such freedom.
| The only way in which commerce between
the States can be legitimately affected by State
laws is when, by virtue OF its police power and
its jurisdiction over persons and property with
in its limits, State provides for the security Of
| life, limb, health comfort, and property, or
! when il does those things which may incidental
| ~ affect commerce. But in making such in
ternal regulations n State cannot impose taxes
upon n person passing through or coming in
merely Tor temporary purpose; nor upon prop
rty imported and not yet become part of the
common mass and no discrimination can be
made by any such regulation adversely TO the
! persons property OF other States, and no reg
ulation can be made directly affecting interstate
commerce. In the matter of interstate COM
merce tho United States are in the opinion OF
this court, but one country, and are and must
be, sub, Get TO one system OF regulations and not
| TO a multitude OF regulations. 1t seems TO be
forgotten that the people of this country are cit
liens of the United States well as OF the indi-
vidual States, ana that they have some rights
under the Constitution and laws Of the former,
independent OF the latter. and from any in
reference or restraint from them. To deny
the State the power TO lay the tax or
require the license in question, will not, the
count believes, in any perceptible degree
dim nish its resources. Goods when brought
into State, in consequence of a sale by q
drummer. will be liable to taxation, and as
much will be realized as il the tax were inn
! POSED before the sale. To tax the sale OF goods
under such circumstances before the SALE is, in
| the opinion of the court, clearly tax on inter-
| state commerce itself. III the employment OF
| drummers injuriously affects local trade Con-
! gross may be appealed to TO make such regula-
| tions the case may demand and Congress
| alone can do this The confusion into which tho
| commerce OF the country would be thrown by
being subjected TO State legislation on this sub
| ject would be. tho court says, but a repetition
of the disorder which prevailed under the odd
articles of confederation.
The judgment of the Supreme Court Of Tennes-
see reversed, and the plaintiff in error is
ordered TO be discharged. Opinion by Justice
Bradley, the Chief Justice and Justices Field
and Gray dissenting on the ground that the law
in question is applicable to drummers coming
into the Shelby County district from other parts
Of Tennessee, we'll as to those from other
imposed on the former would be discrimina-
ton against the citizens of the State.
OTHER SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
The decision Of the United States District
Court of California in refusing writ of habeas
corpus to Thomas Baldwin was reversed, aud
the case remanded for further hearing.
The case involves the rights OF the Chinese
under Federal laws Baldwin was one OF n
party Of citizens who drove number Of resi-
dent Chinese out of the mining town of Nicolaus,
CAL in February, 1886. Baldwin arrested
and charged with conspiracy to deprive these
Chinese of the equal protection OF the laws and
of equal privileges and mmunities undor the
laws. Baldwin applied TO the Circuit Court for
n discharge upon writ of habcas corpus, but
it was refused, and he appealed TO this court
upon the ground that the charge mado against
hun was not sufficient TO justify mis- detention
The opinion, which was long and elaborate
document, read by Chief Justice Waite.
Justices Field and Waite dissented from a por-
zion Of the opinion. Justice Field is of the
opinion that a forcible deprivation of rights Sc
cured by treaty 70 the subjects or citizens Of
any nation isa prevention by force OF the exc
cution of n law of the United States. If this is
not So then there is asaw Of the United states
which can be evoked for the protection of the
subjects of China Notwithstanding the Ian
guage of the treaty with that country and the
same rule must apply with reference to the
rights of the subjects or citizens Of any other
nation resident in the United States. Their
only protection is to be found in the laws of the
different States.
papy Of North America, plaintiff in error,
against Loretta NJ. Crandall, appealed from the
United States Circuit Court OF Illinois, this
court afirms the judgment OF the lower court.
The suit presented the question as to whether
policy of insurance against BODILY injuries
effected through external, accidental and VIC
disability to do business, and providing that
"this insurance shall not extend to death or dis
ability which may have been caused wholly or
in part by bodily infrmities or diseases, or by
the taking of poison or by suicide or self-incted
INJURIES" covers a death by hanging ones self
while insane. The court held that Crandall did
not die by suicide or self-inhicted injuries, be-
cause he was an insane person, and the killing
was not his act-not the act OF himself. The
words bodily infirmities or disease" do not In
Jude insanity. Regarding the clause insuring
randall against bodily injuries effected
rough external, accidental and violent
cans" the court holds that this sentence does
not speak OF what the injury lis caused by, but
looks only TO the means by which it is effect
ed. No one doubts that hanging is a violent
means of death. As IL affects the BODY from
without IL is external, and, according to the do
cisions as TO suicide under policies Of life i'm
surance, il cannot, when done by IN insane per-
son. be held 10 be other than accidental.
DFpuApc tho summorv IF Oood broad